Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Can we trust what God says?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
    If you have a cogent argument against an authoritative consensus, then the consensus doesn't matter. In the case of anthropogenic climate change, no one has produced a cogent argument against the consensus. There still could be one, but no one seems to have discovered it yet.
    Right and science is never highjacked by politics or money!
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seer View Post
      Right and science is never highjacked by politics or money!
      Applied technology most definitely is often highjacked by politics and commercial interests for money, but your assertion is more a 'conspiracy theory,' and not reality.

      What has happened is the money for basic research has been reduced under conservation influence in Congress.

      As far as your assertion of highjacking, can you back this up with documentation and references?
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        Applied technology most definitely is often highjacked by politics and commercial interests for money, but your assertion is more a 'conspiracy theory,' and not reality.

        What has happened is the money for basic research has been reduced under conservation influence in Congress.

        As far as your assertion of highjacking, can you back this up with documentation and references?
        How many "deniers" are getting government grants to further their research? Which "deniers" are receiving IPCC funding? The deck is stacked, try being a skeptic and getting published in a per-review journal.
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post
          Right and science is never highjacked by politics or money!
          I've never said that, but if you think it's happened in this particular case, let's see your evidence.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by seer View Post
            How many "deniers" are getting government grants to further their research? Which "deniers" are receiving IPCC funding?
            I have no idea, but so what? You're asking questions. Questions are not evidence.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
              I have no idea, but so what? You're asking questions. Questions are not evidence.
              Things like this:

              If it remained merely a disagreement about science and research methods, there wouldn’t be much of a story — or reason for concern. Unfortunately, it turned into a scientific lynching of Mr. Soon and Ms. Baliunas and anyone associated with them. For example, Chris de Freitas, the editor of Climate Research that published the paper, was criticized for having failed in his responsibilities of quality control, even though the paper passed an extensive peer-review process and the publisher defended Mr. de Freitas’ handling of the paper. It was argued Mr. de Freitas should be removed from his position simply for having published it. Even Mr. Mann, in his Senate testimony, dismissed Mr. de Freitas’ credentials solely because he “frequently publishes op-ed pieces in newspapers attacking IPCC and attacking [the] Kyoto [protocol].”
              http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz3CkD7RxP7
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                You have failed to present any evidence what so ever that your view has a consistent ontic basis other then the anecdotal 'I believe.' Still waiting . . .
                This is willful blindness. The "evidence", in terms of this argument, that God is the ontic base is God's own testimony to that effect. You may choose not to look at that evidence (though you already know Him in your heart), but that doesn't make the evidence somehow disappear. You really think that you're the first person to suppress the knowledge God has given you by covering your eyes and saying, "Where's the truth? Where's the truth? Gee, who knows for sure?"


                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                Your appealing to an unknown negative assumption about what could or could not possibly take place in the future.

                No, I'm appealing to God's own testimony about His upholding all things...

                And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. (Hebrews 1:3)

                He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. (Colossians 1:17)...

                ...and His promise to do so in the future...

                “While the earth remains,
                Seedtime and harvest,
                And cold and heat,
                And summer and winter,
                And day and night
                Shall not cease.” (Genesis 8:22)

                You, on the other hand, are begging the question, arbitrarily assuming the uniformity of nature in order to rationalize your dependence upon science, and then turning around and appealing to science to give the impression that you've merely concluded with the uniformity of nature on which all science and technology depend.

                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                You hedging. The scientific knowledge is not nor has ever been an appeal to the majority. You need to clarify yourself instead of hedging.
                Straw man fallacy. I said nothing about scientific knowledge. I said something about majority opinion.

                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                the ontic base of the physical evidence has never, and I mean never indicated one shred of evidence nor event that has indicated that our physical existence is not universally consistent.
                This is the fallacy of argument from ignorance. What you've essentially said here is, "Well, you can't prove that it's not universal, so gee, I guess it must be." By that line of reasoning I could "prove" that magical, undetectable goblins will crawl out of your butt at midnight and devour your entire body. After all, we haven't any indication that they don't exist.

                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                Notice the logical fallacies described below your are committing her in your appeal to the negative and unknowns.

                You have failed to present any evidence what so ever that your view has a consistent ontic basis other then the anecdotal 'I believe.' Still waiting . . .
                Straw man fallacy again. I addressed this above.


                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                Your misusing logic here.
                Really? This is gonna be fun.

                1.) What is logic?
                2.) On what basis do you assert that logic is what you believe it to be?
                3.) How should logic be used?
                4.) Are you absolutely sure of the answers you given, or could you be wrong?


                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                You are appealing to hypothetical unknowns of the future to justify your argument, and this is a logical fallacy 'Big time.'
                Straw man fallacy yet again. I'm appealing to the testimony of the ultimate epistemological authority.

                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise (illicit negative) – when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but at least one negative premise
                My argument does not have premises, as it's a transcendental argument, and the purest form of a TA is simply "P presupposes Q". Think of P as a placeholder for any/all facts of reality, and/or operational features of the mind and/or the external world, and think of Q as the Christian worldview. And by "presupposes", here, I mean it requires the Christian worldview to be the actual state of affairs in advance.

                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                or Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa. [/cite]
                That's not my argument at all. Rather, my argument is that, when you reject God's revelation of Himself, you end up with a worldview that reduces to absurdity, as you've already illustrated by conceding that you don't know anything for sure.


                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                Actually, your appealing to an unknown negative here like a broken record and committing the same fallacy as above.
                No, I'm appealing to the devastating admission you made regarding your worldview, which renders your worldview absurd. And so I'm asking you to be consistent with that worldview. If by your own admission you can't know anything, then you have no basis for objecting to (or agreeing with) anything anyone says. You're simply left with absurdity.

                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                Your avoiding a consistent positive argument concerning what you believe and why.
                I gave the argument above.

                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                Same applies to you Really? Could you be wrong about that?
                No. The biblical worldview is true, and I could not be wrong about that.

                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                Not exactly, not even close, we have as much a certainty as possible that nature is indeed uniform
                Really? What percentage of certainty do you have, specifically?
                Are you sure that you have that percentage is correct, or could you be wrong about that?


                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                You have failed to present any evidence what so ever that your view has a consistent ontic basis other then the anecdotal 'I believe.' Still waiting . . .

                The reverse is most likely true.
                To say that something is---or is not--- "likely" assumes a standard of absolute certainty against which to compare the relative likelihood of a given claim (you can't know what is closer to the truth unless you know what the truth is to begin with). What is that standard of absolute certainty in your worldview?

                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                Please give me any evidence for your assertion the nature of our physical existence is not uniform.
                Why would I give "evidence" for a view I don't hold? I'm not challenging the uniformity of nature---in fact I hold to it. Based on God's revelation I have every reason to hold to it.
                I'm challenging your worldview's ability to give any reason for holding to it. What is the basis for the uniformity of nature in your worldview? On what basis do you expect tomorrow to be like today? How do you know the laws of nature won't change?
                Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Corinthians 1:20)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
                  This is willful blindness. The "evidence", in terms of this argument, that God is the ontic base is God's own testimony to that effect. You may choose not to look at that evidence (though you already know Him in your heart), but that doesn't make the evidence somehow disappear. You really think that you're the first person to suppress the knowledge God has given you by covering your eyes and saying, "Where's the truth? Where's the truth? Gee, who knows for sure?"
                  Appeal to what 'I believe,' not a coherent argument.

                  No, I'm appealing to God's own testimony about His upholding all things...
                  No coherent argument with premises, simply the fallacy of the appeal to authority, based only on I believe.

                  And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. (Hebrews 1:3)

                  He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. (Colossians 1:17)...

                  ...and His promise to do so in the future...

                  “While the earth remains,
                  Seedtime and harvest,
                  And cold and heat,
                  And summer and winter,
                  And day and night
                  Shall not cease.” (Genesis 8:22)
                  Problem, does not address your appeal to the negative knowledge of the future concerning uniformity. It remains a fallacy.

                  You, on the other hand, are begging the question, arbitrarily assuming the uniformity of nature in order to rationalize your dependence upon science, and then turning around and appealing to science to give the impression that you've merely concluded with the uniformity of nature on which all science and technology depend.
                  No begging the question, nor arbitraily assuming the uniformity. Standing on the ontic base of the consistency of the physical evidence without fail.

                  You are often appealing to the fallacy of appealing to ignorance of the negative over and over and over again.

                  Straw man fallacy. I said nothing about scientific knowledge. I said something about majority opinion.
                  You have asserted that that science does not have an ontic base, which solely based on 'I believe' and nothing more.


                  This is the fallacy of argument from ignorance. What you've essentially said here is, "Well, you can't prove that it's not universal, so gee, I guess it must be." By that line of reasoning I could "prove" that magical, undetectable goblins will crawl out of your butt at midnight and devour your entire body. After all, we haven't any indication that they don't exist.
                  First, quote me accurately, I did not say the following highlighted above. It is a fallacy big time. One cannot prove the negative. You on the other hand repeatedly commit the fallacy of appealing to ignorance and the negative.



                  Straw man fallacy again. I addressed this above.
                  No not addressed in an argument, misuse of strawman, read your definitions and stop parroting repeatedly fallacies, and present a coherent argument with premises.




                  Really? This is gonna be fun.

                  1.) What is logic?
                  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic



                  Logic (from the Ancient Greek: λογική, logike)[1] is the use and study of valid reasoning.[2][3] The study of logic features most prominently in the subjects of philosophy, mathematics, and computer science.

                  Logic was studied in several ancient civilizations, including India,[4] China,[5] Persia and Greece. In the West, logic was established as a formal discipline by Aristotle, who gave it a fundamental place in philosophy. The study of logic was part of the classical trivium, which also included grammar and rhetoric. Logic was further extended by Al-Farabi who categorized it into two separate groups (idea and proof). Later, Avicenna revived the study of logic and developed relationship between temporalis and the implication. In the East, logic was developed by Buddhists and Jains.

                  Logic is often divided into three parts: inductive reasoning, abductive reasoning, and deductive reasoning.

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  Proofs in mathematics is a form of logic.

                  The philosophy of science is also grounded in logic

                  2.) On what basis do you assert that logic is what you believe it to be?
                  I do not assert logic. It is simply a tool first formalized by the Greeks, and Chinese, with forms in Persia and India as a discipline of debate and dialogue. It is a tool to be used in math and science.

                  3.) How should logic be used?
                  To argue, debate, and justify and acquire knowledge as in its use in math and science.

                  Logic is used to give structure and purpose in defense of arguments.

                  Apparently your logic is simply: God says and I believe.


                  4.) Are you absolutely sure of the answers you given, or could you be wrong?
                  Parroting fallacy, arguing from ignorance.


                  Straw man fallacy yet again. I'm appealing to the testimony of the ultimate epistemological authority.
                  Misusing the 'straw man fallacy*,' and ah . . .
                  Source:

                  Argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ab auctoritate), also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacyal fallacy when misused.'

                  © Copyright Original Source

                  without any coherent argument with logical premises.

                  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

                  A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument.[1] To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  Please document. If you do not make a coherent logical argument with premises instead of assertions based only on 'I believe' this accusation is meaningless.



                  My argument does not have premises, as it's a transcendental argument, and the purest form of a TA is simply "P presupposes Q". Think of P as a placeholder for any/all facts of reality, and/or operational features of the mind and/or the external world, and think of Q as the Christian worldview. And by "presupposes", here, I mean it requires the Christian worldview to be the actual state of affairs in advance.
                  As usual 'no premises' airball, thus no logical argument. Your entire argument is based only on 'I believe,' and nothing more.



                  That's not my argument at all. Rather, my argument is that, when you reject God's revelation of Himself, you end up with a worldview that reduces to absurdity, as you've already illustrated by conceding that you don't know anything for sure.
                  Again, no coherent argument accept 'I believe.' Airball big time.


                  No, I'm appealing to the devastating admission you made regarding your worldview, which renders your worldview absurd. And so I'm asking you to be consistent with that worldview. If by your own admission you can't know anything, then you have no basis for objecting to (or agreeing with) anything anyone says. You're simply left with absurdity.
                  No such devastating admission made. You have a creative egocentric imagination.



                  I gave the argument above.
                  No you did not!



                  No. The biblical worldview is true, and I could not be wrong about that.
                  Your conceit and arrogance of knowing proceeds you.



                  Really? What percentage of certainty do you have, specifically?
                  Are you sure that you have that percentage is correct, or could you be wrong about that?
                  Again, the ontic base of the physical evidence has never, and I mean never indicated one shred of evidence nor event that has indicated that our physical existence is not universally consistent.

                  If you can cite evidence to the contrary this please do, instead of appealing to the negative fallacy..




                  To say that something is---or is not--- "likely" assumes a standard of absolute certainty against which to compare the relative likelihood of a given claim (you can't know what is closer to the truth unless you know what the truth is to begin with).
                  Again your conceit and arrogance proceeds you in your claim of 'knowing' the absolute truth that apparently God revealed to you.


                  What is that standard of absolute certainty in your worldview?
                  The facts are the non contradictory nature of the ontic base of uniform physical evidence.



                  Why would I give "evidence" for a view I don't hold? I'm not challenging the uniformity of nature---in fact I hold to it. Based on God's revelation I have every reason to hold to it.
                  I'm challenging your worldview's ability to give any reason for holding to it. What is the basis for the uniformity of nature in your worldview? On what basis do you expect tomorrow to be like today? How do you know the laws of nature won't change?
                  Your challenge lacks substance, especially without presenting premises nor "evidence," and is flawed by fallacies of arguing from the negative.
                  It remains a fact that you deny the uniformity of nature as the ontic base of science and appeal to the negative fallacy of an unknown future in your argument.
                  Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-09-2014, 06:29 AM.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mr. Black
                    That's not my argument at all. Rather, my argument is that, when you reject God's revelation of Himself, you end up with a worldview that reduces to absurdity, as you've already illustrated by conceding that you don't know anything for sure.

                    One thing is certain about you. You didn't know scientific epistemology was a thing. =)

                    First, when discussing epistemology, you don't start with God. You start from a philosophical and scientific base of reliable knowledge. Philosophers were the first epistemologists to question bad omens and superstitions attached to earthquakes and comets. See the connection there? If we started with God and didn't incorporate scientific epistemology, we'd still be flagellating ourselves thinking God was communicating to us via natural phenomena.

                    At present, you have no idea that telling people to go backwards from a pure faith statement (God said it -- that settles it!) to all the mumbo jumbo you've been peddling for the past few weeks is a recipe for creating shallow believers whose faith will falter after one astronomy class. Christian brethren are either too afraid or exasperated to tell you this, and that's a damn shame.

                    First, you need to know what epistemology really is and then try REALLY hard to process the general revelation. The general revelation tells you that the universe is ancient and that you are a primate. Clamping your hands over your ears regarding those two key pieces of "general revelation" information makes you look the fool.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Do you trust all newspapers, or just that one?

                      Comment


                      • I think this quote here essentially sums up Mr. Black's position:

                        Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
                        No. The biblical worldview is true, and I could not be wrong about that.
                        No argument or appeal to evidence can trump his interpretation of God's revelation. He cannot possibly be wrong because he believes God cannot be wrong. I don't think he is being arrogant or deceitful but rather he is genuinely attempting to submit himself to the truths revealed in Scripture to the best of his understanding. From the perspective of the unbeliever he is engaging in presuppositional or circular reasoning and is probably delusional to an extent. From Mr. Black's perspective, the unbeliever is suppressing their innate knowledge of God in unrighteousness and the only reason they can engage in rational discussion is because they are operating within the reality of the Christian worldview, which they deny.

                        It seems both parties are going to continue talking past one another, but it is definitely interesting to watch play out.

                        Comment


                        • Even if the Biblical word-view were 100% accurate, it would still be necessary to show that Mr Black (or anyone else) has correctly interpreted the Bible. In light of physical evidence available, if Mr Black's interpretation of the Bible were accurate, the Bible would be wrong.
                          sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                            Even if the Biblical word-view were 100% accurate, it would still be necessary to show that Mr Black (or anyone else) has correctly interpreted the Bible. In light of physical evidence available, if Mr Black's interpretation of the Bible were accurate, the Bible would be wrong.
                            I agree that it is necessary to show the validity of one's interpretation. In regards to the physical evidence, I imagine Mr. Black would highlight that all physical evidence is filtered through worldview presuppositions and if your presupposition is incorrect (naturalism and/or uniformitarianism is true) then you will wrongly interpret the physical evidence as a result.

                            Comment


                            • To some extent such a claim would be supportable, but it can go only so far. Where two (apparently) valid but competing interpretations are on the table, one way to determine which is accurate would be to compare the interpretations with additional data (external and internal). Mr Black's interpretation of 6 solar days of creation is not the only possibly valid interpretation of the record of Genesis 1, and the alternative interpretation of "day" as "era" doesn't create a conflict with the physical evidence. In reconciling Genesis 1 with Genesis 2, either the wholly unsupported (by dictionary entries) change of "in the day" to mean "when" competes with the supported (by dictionary entries) interpretation of "in the day" to mean "in the era" - that alternative interpretation gives a uniform interpretation of the word within the same topic and in physical proximity. In short - Mr Black's interpretation is somewhat less than satisfactory.
                              sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
                                I think this quote here essentially sums up Mr. Black's position:

                                No argument or appeal to evidence can trump his interpretation of God's revelation. He cannot possibly be wrong because he believes God cannot be wrong. I don't think he is being arrogant or deceitful but rather he is genuinely attempting to submit himself to the truths revealed in Scripture to the best of his understanding.
                                I think the first problem is compounded when he makes accusations of fallacies when his foundation argument is not a logical argument. I do not give people the slack you offer unless they are mentally ill. Self delusion may be more descriptive of the case compounded by the belief that when one is chosen as one of the elect of God, there is no possible question that any other view could possibly be true. I do not believe he accepts freedom of Will or choice in this case.

                                From the perspective of the unbeliever he is engaging in presuppositional or circular reasoning and is probably delusional to an extent. From Mr. Black's perspective, the unbeliever is suppressing their innate knowledge of God in unrighteousness and the only reason they can engage in rational discussion is because they are operating within the reality of the Christian worldview, which they deny.

                                It seems both parties are going to continue talking past one another, but it is definitely interesting to watch play out.
                                I agree to most of the above, but I believe Mr. Black is Calvinist, which complicates things a bit. If he does not hold to the five points of Calvinism, then I am mistaken, the following point would be important.

                                Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism#Five_points_of_Calvinism



                                "Unconditional election" asserts that God has chosen from eternity those whom he will bring to himself not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people; rather, his choice is unconditionally grounded in his mercy alone. God has chosen from eternity to extend mercy to those he has chosen and to withhold mercy from those not chosen. Those chosen receive salvation through Christ alone. Those not chosen receive the just wrath that is warranted for their sins against God.[68]

                                © Copyright Original Source



                                In this view I may not even have the opportunity to deny, because I was not chosen. '. . . unbeliever is suppressing their innate knowledge of God in unrighteousness and the only reason they can engage in rational discussion is because they are operating within the reality of the Christian worldview, which they deny.'
                                Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-09-2014, 07:49 AM.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Starlight, 07-24-2021, 09:58 PM
                                35 responses
                                166 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by seer, 07-20-2021, 12:05 PM
                                170 responses
                                847 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 07-16-2021, 07:39 AM
                                76 responses
                                421 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Mountain Man, 07-05-2021, 04:27 PM
                                74 responses
                                445 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by tabibito, 06-30-2021, 02:53 AM
                                50 responses
                                336 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X